HLC Writing Team

HLC Writing Team
0 Mike Schaefer - Chair of SPARC
0 Lynn Burley - Director of Academic Assessment
0 Janet Wilson - Faculty Senate President
0 Dianna Winters - President of Staff Senate
0 Austin Hall - President of SGA
0 Jonathan Glenn - Author of the 2010 HLC Self Study, and
Chief Information Officer
HLC Writing Team
0 Diane Newton - Member of Senior Staff, & Chief Financial
Aid Officer
0 Brad Teague - Member of Senior Staff, & Athletics Director
0 Conrad Shumaker - Director of General Education
0 Steve Runge - Interim Provost
0 Maurice Lee - HLC Consultant/Evaluator and Dean
0 Neil Hattlestad - HLC Consultant/Evaluator and Dean
Adequacy of Progress in Addressing
Previously Identified Challenges:
The 2000 HLC team identified three areas of concern that
UCA was mandated to address:
0 Comprehensive long-range planning
0 Governance processes and structures
0 Policies and procedures for meeting diverse student and
employee needs
“The 2010 HLC team considers the response of the organization to
previously identified challenges to be inadequate”
P.9 of Assurance Section of the 2010 HLC Team report
Areas of Focus for Monitoring Report:
“The monitoring report will document results of the
strategic planning process at UCA…HLC staff will expect
to see a completed, comprehensive, long-range plan ready
for implementation…this will include processes &
procedures to implement & monitor the plan, and take
action for:
1) Meeting the needs of diverse students & employees &
provide for full inclusion of diverse groups into the life
of the university;
Areas of Focus for Monitoring Report:
2) Incorporating shared governance, transparent
communication & an organizational & administrative
structure with well-defined roles & responsibilities;
3) Establishing a culture of assessment of student learning
that is aligned with the mission of the university; and
4) Evaluating & measuring INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS in non-instructional programs,
institutional outreach, and student support for all
instructional delivery modes”
P.31 of 2010 HLC team report
Five Criteria – Team Findings are
Listed Under 1 of 3 categories:
1) Evidence that the Core Components are met
2) Evidence that one or more Core Components need
organizational attention
3) Evidence that one or more specified Core Components
require Commission follow-up
Criterion 1 – Mission and Integrity
2) “The team found scant evidence that the mission
statement played a meaningful role in university-wide,
formal decision-making over the past decade.” p.13
3) “…the Faculty Handbook contains only two mentions
of diversity.” p.14
3) “The university planning processes seem to have died
in 2004 with the production of the Strategic
Framework.” p.14
3) “UCA does not seem to have any pathway through
which learning outcomes assessment results are
communicated above the level of the deans.” p.14
Criterion 2 – Preparing for the Future
2) “Most evaluation and assessment at UCA is, as planning,
at the unit level.” p.17
2) “as UCA implements its long-range plan it must establish
key performance indicators that measure the overall
health and direction of institutional performance as an
aggregate of collections of units.”
3) “…the Strategic Framework…has not become an
operational guide for the university and its elements.”
p.18
Criterion 2 (continued)
3) “There is little evident planning related to diversity &
internationalization of the campus.” p.18
3) “…at the time of the visit, UCA was under a
mandated HLC Financial Recovery Plan due to
declining financial ratios beginning in 2003.”
3) “…the future role of the Budget Advisory committee
will need to be clarified.”
Criterion 3 – Student Learning and
Effective Teaching
2) “…assessment goals and objectives are often abstract
and general…” p.22
3) “While UCA reviews general education, it appears
unable to think broadly about the skills and attitudes
this critical program implies for the students…students
do not understand, for example, why they need to take
coursework in the sciences or history.” p.23
3) “Currently, there are no demonstrated learning
outcomes for UCA’s General Education Program.” p.24
Criterion 4 – Acquisition, Discovery,
and Application of Knowledge
2) “…a review of 2008 annual reports of a group of general
education providing departments shows serious
inconsistencies in the role of the discipline in general
education, what is assessment and how it is done, and
the use of the results, if any (i.e., closing the loop).”
p.26
Criterion 5 – Engagement and Service
2) “…there is little evidence of systematic analysis of
participant surveys, or of university response to input
received from advisory panels.” p.29
2) “…a more systematic effort at collecting and analyzing
evaluative data from participants in hosted events
would allow the university to more accurately assess the
effectiveness of its efforts to serve its campus and
external constituencies.”
Focused Visit in 2014
“The team will expect to see the comprehensive, long-range
plan fully established. Successful results of the
implemented plan will include a budgeting process that
reflects allocations based on strategic priorities, which in
turn advance DIVERSITY, GOVERNANCE,
COMMUNICATION, ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT
LEARNING, AND ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS.” p.31
VISION – UCA aspires to be a premier learnerfocused public comprehensive university, a
nationally recognized leader for its continuous
record of excellence in education, scholarly &
creative endeavors, and engagement with local,
national, and global communities.
MISSION – UCA dedicates itself to academic
vitality, integrity, and diversity. AVID
UCA’s people have demonstrated a resiliency and a
deep commitment to their lived mission and to
their students and each other…They have
continued to attract students who are academically
very competitive. (Assurance Section, p.4)
Over this time (2002-2007), an ever increasing
number of students attended UCA, received
quality instruction from dedicated faculty and
benefitted from existing and new academic
programs. (Assurance Section, p.16)
Samples of Student Outcomes
Statements
Graduates of this program will be able to:
1. administer age-appropriate and culturally sensitive
assessment measures;
2. develop and implement effective treatment plans using
appropriate data;
3. effectively document treatment procedures and results;
and,
4. create recommendations for referrals and discharge
plans based on data collected from an effective
evaluation process.